Misunderstanding Risk (A Lunchtime Musing)

[cahwyguy]

Americans do not understand risk (actually, most humans don’t understand risk).

Want a good example of this? Look at the recent NSA data collection scandal. People are in an uproar about it. Investigations have started. Lawmakers are claiming they had no idea this is what they approved. Google is saying “don’t worry” and wanting to disclose what they really shared. Polls are, well, polling in various ways. People are pushing 1984 up the best seller lists. Everyone is debating whether the discloser is a traitor or a hero. In short, the Internet has its panties in a wad about this.

Now, I’m not trying to say this data collection — especially in secret — is a good thing. It isn’t. It is likely either unconstitutional or borderline, and should be investigated fully (although we can’t really blame only on the current administration, as the collection started in the previous administration… and as such, both are to blame). But is it risky? Are government agents going to come to your house and bang down your door as a result of this? Very unlikely. The amount of data collected — and the type of data collected — makes the possibility that government will be proactively searching and targeting you extremely remote. Just given the amount of data and its unstructured nature, Occam’s Razor says it will more likely be used for additional investigation after some other intelligence source uncovers a target of interest. In other words: this data will (most likely) only be used after you are already on the radar for some other reason. For 99.9% of the people in America, that means the personal worry is hypothetical. [Again: this doesn't make the program right; it only means you don't need to be as paranoid. That is, of course, unless they really are after you.]

However, there is a data collection program that is a worry — but people don’t think about it. This opinion piece highlights it. We are giving giant corporations loads of personal data every day. Facebook scans and records your every like, status update, and picture… and sells that data to advertisers. Google scans your email, your Google documents, your searches, and sells that data to advertisers and uses it to market to you. Amazon knows your books, your wants, your desires (and soon, what you eat). Credit card companies know your purchasing patterns and use it to market you. Supermarkets know your purchases, tied to you every time you save a penny using an affinity card. What’s worse is that we willingly give our data to these corporations. We ignore the privacy policies they send. We send unencrypted email. We send unencrypted texts and tweets. We post indiscriminately. We give our information away to save 5c.

Yet when do we get outraged? When the “government” gets only part of that data. When the government that gets the data hasn’t even demonstrated that it has the capability to use the data. Why is the implicit assumption that government is bad, and that corporations are good? Why do we ignore all the corporate data mining that goes on? We’re sheep, people, sheep, for the corporations that are the real puppetmasters of the world. You doubt me? Who makes major donations to politicians to get them to do what is in the corporation’s interests?

As you get your dander up about the government data collection, put it in perspective. The real risk isn’t the government collecting the data. The real risk is that these corporations are collecting the data in the first place. While the government has laws — and the constitution — that will eventually limit its reach… corporations have no such restrictions. Yes, Big Brothers are watching you… but is the brother we must really worry about the Government… or that brother from another mother?

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Comments

[cahwyguy]

"listen to calls" -- perhaps not. According to Verizon, all that was supplied was metadata, not the actual calls. Of course, that would be domestic to domestic only. I seem to recall, from ages ago when I read "The Puzzle Palace", that NSA may have the right to listen to domestic to foreign calls independent of the warrant stuff (like it or not, there are different rules when calls have a foreign component). Listening to phone calls typically requires wiretap rules.

"read emails" -- most people forget that email is not an inherently secure or reliable mechanism. It is "postcards written in pencil", and I'm not sure all the laws have caught up to protect emails the same as paper mail. More significantly, I remember from my CISSP studies that VoIP (phone over internet) does not have the same wiretap rules. As more and more people move to VoIP because it is cheaper, they often forget that. Again, our laws have not caught up with our technology; the protections are not the same when people use the internet (no matter what they feel it should be).

[Edited to add: Thinking about this comment on the ride into work: There is a distinction between "right" and "legal", for what is legal to do is not always "right". Government operates in the realm of what is "legal" for many reasons, but most likely because government rarely has a moral center (and if it does, usually it is a theocracy, and those outside the selected moral center are in trouble). So the rights the government extends are for citizens, which is why it is legal for NSA to intercept communications crossing the borders, on the presumption that one side is not a citizen and thus not subject to the 4th amendment. As I noted before, laws haven't caught up with technology, which is why electronic communication is often treated differently (least of which is the fact you can not prove the source of a communication as emails can be easily forged).

One last thought before I dive into work: I'm not saying I necessarily agree with all of this. Rather, I believe it is important to fully understand an issue. There are loads of positions that I understand (such as those of my conservative and libertarian friends) that I do not agree with.